Friedman is right today in the main of his latest op-ed. But one needn't have been against NATO expansion in 1999 in order to have been against another round meant to include Georgia and Ukraine. Wisdom present in that first round is conspicuously absent in the second. When it comes down to it, 'cramming' expansion 'down Russia's throat' made for far less of a humiliation and inflicted far less damage than throwing Russia open to unfettered Western capitalism.
The blame for the failure to integrate Russia smoothly and successfully into the West -- if such a thing could ever have been done, it was then -- belongs at the feet of Clinton's international-economic team, not his foreign-policy team. Including Poland, Czeschoslovakia, and Hungary in NATO completed the poem of the Alliance, put the pupils in its eyes, choose your own metaphor; the enlistment of those nations in the triumphant Pact formalized and accomplished the West's longest-term geopolitical objectives -- taking central Europe off the table of conquest in any direction.
Pulling in the Baltics is another matter, weighted heavily by the fact that they were simply gobbled up by the Soviets in an act of plain annexation. Contrast, say, Ukraine. And Georgia, which is just too far away from continental Europe to make for much of a geostrategic link. If Georgia falls, NATO is safe. If Lithuania falls...
But the whole point is that these kinds of spasmodic fears are muted BOTH by the integration of central Europe into NATO and by the exclusion of Georgia and Ukraine. On the other hand, Russia, as I've speculated before, may be much more willing to 'lose' Georgia to NATO after leaving Georgia in whatever condition it pleases. Though surely this is extremely unlikely to happen in the Ukrainian case.
i like this part of the blog:"Pulling in the Baltics is another matter, weighted heavily by the fact that they were simply gobbled up by the Soviets in an act of plain annexation. Contrast, say, Ukraine. And Georgia, which is just too far away from continental Europe to make for much of a geostrategic link. If Georgia falls, NATO is safe. If Lithuania falls..." is very good
Posted by: buy generic viagra | April 22, 2010 at 03:37 PM
Paella always make me think of speey gonzalez for some reason!!! Andale andale ariba!! This looks gorgeous, remember having it in Barcelona and loving it! I'm so glad you tried it out. I was thinking about this recipe just the other day, I have to do it again soon.
I made this yesterday and it was yum! Thank you.
Posted by: viagra online | August 19, 2010 at 04:48 PM
The importance of NATO has been undermined seriously over the years. Now the west would let it install some pride and importance in Libya.
Posted by: auto insurance companies | April 02, 2011 at 04:37 PM
Sorry but NATO are corrupt. I Served for NATO, there interests are not best at heart. Trust me.
Posted by: toto toilets | April 13, 2011 at 09:04 PM
Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website. However,
I would like to see more details about this topic.
Posted by: essay | October 07, 2011 at 07:03 AM
yeap....NATO not right////
Posted by: research paper writing | November 09, 2011 at 06:00 AM